1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

On September 26, 2011, the Plaintiff was granted immunity on July 4, 2013 by filing an application for immunity with the Seoul Central District Court 201Da10250, and the decision became final and conclusive on July 20, 2013.

The Plaintiff, by negligence, failed to enter in the list of creditors the borrowed money as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant (as the borrowed money and its interest accrued from obtaining a loan from the Defendant on January 29, 2009, hereinafter “instant obligation”).

Since the Plaintiff did not intentionally or maliciously omit it, the obligation of this case shall also be exempted.

Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the exemption of the obligation of this case, as stated in the purport of the claim.

Judgment

A. We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the defendant to receive a judgment of confirmation against the defendant, in order to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006).

According to the purport of the statement and the whole argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant filed an application against the plaintiff for a payment order against the plaintiff as Seoul Eastern District Court 2013 tea16371 on the debt of this case, and the payment order was finalized on April 26, 2013.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination of the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of the enforcement title as to the debt exempted, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of the enforcement title as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 201Ma1438, Sept. 16, 2013). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of the enforcement title as to the debt exempted.